Really sounds like there's a problem with your copy Martin. I would also be p*ssed if my copy was so randomly performing. Luckily it isn't.

MaktenRegistered: Jul 14, 2008Total Posts: 4059Country: Sweden

Jonas B wrote:
Here I was thinking about giving you a decent offer for your RX1. That's a bit rude but as one not having taken a single image in (soon to be) three months I felt entitled.
But the problem you describe sounds bothersome. Putting your reputation as one seldom satisfied aside I don't think the behaviour of your copy is neither typical nor acceptable.

I have my micro 4/3 gear up for sale and I'm looking for a small body with better image quality (subjectively) and have been looking at the Fujifilm XE1 and the RX1. An XE1 with the 35/1.4 and the 14/2.8 seem to be the way to go for me but the RX is still, despite the price, tempting. A small body with a good lens and a FF sensor free from questionable features like IBIS or OIS has to end up very high on the list.

When it works, it's a lovely camera and I wouldn't even think of selling it if it did what it should. But now it's up for sale and I'll just quit shooting for a while. Feels really bad that the gear should always get inbetween me and the image.

Jochenb wrote:
Really sounds like there's a problem with your copy Martin. Mine is a steady performer, no suprises.

Still there are several reports of "mid field weakness", which could be exactly what I'm seeing.

JochenbRegistered: May 25, 2010Total Posts: 1880Country: Belgium

Would a "mid field weakness" cause an image to be soft on only one side? Sounds too strange to me. Always makes me look at the possible decentering of a lens. The fact you can't just replicate the issue makes it even stranger.

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2567Country: Sweden

But then you are selling a camera which we (I think we do?) agree is defective? If you want to PM me mentioning your price, please feel free to do so giving me something to think about.

A camera getting in the way is of course a big freak'n problem. I think my best images all have been taken with gear I knew well after having used and learned it over time. I can't say any of my digital cameras have been there really. It's probably just me but it means I have to search for something different now.

Jochenb wrote:
Would a "mid field weakness" cause an image to be soft on only one side? Sounds too strange to me. Always makes me look at the possible decentering of a lens. The fact you can't just replicate the issue makes it even stranger.

+1 agree. I have seen cases of lens decentering where a tiny bit of front or back focus (enough to hardly notice in the center, particularly with dof) will result in a significant change to the outer edges/ borders of an image because that part of the lens element is moved to a greater degree than the center with the slight change in focus. One side of the image could be affected in the opposite direction as the other side so depending on the scene and dof, this could certainly be the issue (and it could be unpredictable).

MaktenRegistered: Jul 14, 2008Total Posts: 4059Country: Sweden

Jochenb wrote:
Would a "mid field weakness" cause an image to be soft on only one side?

Think the other way around. It could be decentering that shows up as "mid field weakness" for others too.

Jonas B wrote:
But then you are selling a camera which we (I think we do?) agree is defective?

I have no idea of if it's defective. I sent pictures from my last copy (that really WAS decentered) to Zeiss and they thought it looked OK. So I have zero hope for anyone letting me return this one, which is much better.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have seen cases of lens decentering where a tiny bit of front or back focus (enough to hardly notice in the center, particularly with dof) will result in a significant change to the outer edges/ borders of an image because that part of the lens element is moved to a greater degree than the center with the slight change in focus. One side of the image could be affected in the opposite direction as the other side so depending on the scene and dof, this could certainly be the issue (and it could be unpredictable).

Exactly. Though I think it's more about tilted image plane than decentering.

Yes on the tilted image plane. I think that often happens with lenses which are decentered. Either one or more elements could be slightly tilted physically OR because of the shape/ curvature of lens elements, the decentering also results in image tilt from side to side.

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2567Country: Sweden

Makten wrote:
I have no idea of if it's defective. I sent pictures from my last copy (that really WAS decentered) to Zeiss and they thought it looked OK. So I have zero hope for anyone letting me return this one, which is much better.

I see what you mean. What a miserable situation! With a customer care at that level it doesn't help that you, me, Jochenb, Tariq and Carsten (and let me assume a lot more not having seen this part of the thread) believes there is something strange going on.

But, I can be happy with a camera somewhat slow to work with, deliberate shooting is probably my thing, never trusting AF and seldom in a hurry. So I'm still a presumptive buyer.

MaktenRegistered: Jul 14, 2008Total Posts: 4059Country: Sweden

Jonas B wrote:
I see what you mean. What a miserable situation! With a customer care at that level it doesn't help that you, me, Jochenb, Tariq and Carsten (and let me assume a lot more not having seen this part of the thread) believes there is something strange going on.

I don't think one could expect them to take back a lens that most of the time appears to deliver sort of what it should. Heck, they probably wouldn't see anything wrong with a more rigorous QC.

But, I can be happy with a camera somewhat slow to work with, deliberate shooting is probably my thing, never trusting AF and seldom in a hurry. So I'm still a presumptive buyer.

Too bad you're in Gothenburg, otherwise you could have borrowed it for a week or so.

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2567Country: Sweden

Makten wrote:

Too bad you're in Gothenburg, otherwise you could have borrowed it for a week or so.

That's a kind offer and I would have been happy for such a tryout period. I saw your ad and wish you luck selling the camera!

Yes, I have no idea if the lens is defective - just throwing an idea out there. If Marken already experieneced one defective copy for obvious decentering, that does raise suspicion. I know it's a completely different beast, but I saw decentering on two copies of the ZA 24/2 when I shot with the A900. One of those was subtle enough to not show up all the time. Given what I would imagine are extremely tight tolerances on the RX1, seems like it could be more susceptible?

JochenbRegistered: May 25, 2010Total Posts: 1880Country: Belgium

Tariq, I also had to return my first copy because of a decentered lens.

I'm still very unsure about the performance. I shot some "landscapes" today and I find the results really dull at f/5.6. It could be AF of course (front focus), but that doesn't matter since I don't like MF with "fly by wire".

When the **** can I have a camera that I'm happy with? I'd take the images from my D700 with sort of any decent lens over the RX1, but the weight just kills the fun.

Interesting - I tryed to write about the D700s ability comparing to other cameras on another thread, CarstenW: Do you remember ?

No? It sounds like I have said something where you will now tell me "told you so"

philip_pjRegistered: Apr 03, 2009Total Posts: 3512Country: Australia

Something strange allright - I walked into a local camera store with my RX1 box to try out bags that fit, the young guy behind the counter widened his eyes and crooned at me: 'oooh, RX1'.

What this tells me is this one is already being perceived as a cult camera, but what kind - mainstream or tough guy? Maybe it will displace a Leica M in the movies in the hands of say, pretty Brad Pitt or Carbon Cate Blanchett? Nah...Jake Gyllenhaal or Christian Bale maybe, the RX1 is definitely more stealth anti-hero than celeb bling.

Yesterday I was at a small-town festival and a young woman approached and asked, "is that an M9? I've never seen one before!" Similar happened while wandering Central Park in NYC... Maybe I should have invested in a Leica system while I was in high school, instead of Canon. Well, prices would have been much better back then, I suppose.

Regarding RX1 midfield 'weakness.' What I saw at infinity was very subtle, to the point where I think many wouldn't recognize it. It was consistent in a ring-shaped band at an equal distance from the center and not biased to one side or the other.

Really, while it existed, at least in the copy I used, it would not deter me from using the camera, which is simply a stellar performer.

philip_pjRegistered: Apr 03, 2009Total Posts: 3512Country: Australia

She paid it the ultimate compliment, did the young woman. Can I ask your and others' present opinion on the colour shift issue? I see very little in most images here, and for many users it will go unnoticed if they use the in-camera settings that affect it.

Tim Ashley made a Cornerfix profile and showed some concerning images...he also raised the suggestion that Sony might do a firmware release with 'full' correction in-camera. I'm not sending mine back, I fell in love with the Sony sensor last November for the reasons Tim mentions. But getting that part of the RX1 output pretty right would be good - the slight f4 softness and maybe the funky behaviour Martin experienced would not bother me at all. They all have their faults, esp below 50mm although that slow 24mm Leica Elmar is maybe the best of all.

Yeah, that's how I feel after four hours of teaching...like the biggest nerd around!

That is Jon Heder from Napoleon Dynamite for those unaware.

MaktenRegistered: Jul 14, 2008Total Posts: 4059Country: Sweden

No more RX1 for me (for now at least). Just got a pile of cash, a CV 40/2 and a Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR II to play with instead. I'm really not interested in tele shooting, but perhaps I could find som inspiration from trying something new.